The Signs of the Times, vol. 9

June 28, 1883

“The Sabbath-School. Acts 9:23-33; Galatians 1:13-18” The Signs of the Times, 9, 25.

E. J. Waggoner

Lesson for Pacific Coast-July 7. Acts 9:23-33; Galatians 1:13-18.
Notes on the Lesson.

There is no one thing that shows the brevity of the Scripture narrative more clearly than the account of the period immediately following Saul’s conversion, as given in the text. We read in Acts 9:22, 23, “But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him.” Then follows his escape from Damascus, and his arrival at Jerusalem. Now in reading this account, the casual reader would suppose that Saul spent those “many days” in Damascus, teaching in the synagogues. It is only by an incidental remark in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, that we learn that the “many days” were three years, and that a part of this time (how much we do not know) was spent in Arabia. There is not the slightest discrepancy between Luke’s history and the statement of Paul. Luke merely passes by this event, as he does many others, because it is not absolutely necessary to the object for which he wrote. He was not writing a minute history of Paul’s life, any more than the evangelists professed to write a minute account of Christ’s earthly ministry. SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.1

Prof. Wm. Green, of Princeton, in writing on the book of Joshua, and noticing how very brief history is, and what a small portion of Joshua’s was life is recorded, makes the following general statement, which applies to all Bible history:- SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.2

“The sacred history is never merely an annalistic record. It traces the development of God’s earthly kingdom, and the progress of his scheme of grace. Events, which have no bearing upon this theme, however interesting they might be from other points of view, do not come within the scope of the Bible narrative. The long residence of Israel and Egypt, and thirty-eight out of the forty years’ wandering in the desert, contributed nothing to the purpose for which the history was written. The silence of the historian respecting them creates no gap or unaccountable break in the narrative. It clearly shows the steadfastness with which the plan adopted was adhered to.” SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.3

It is necessary to bear this fact in mind in reading the Scriptures. If all did so, it would save much confusion. For instance, in the first and second chapters of Genesis we have the record of the creation, and the setting apart of the seventh day as the Sabbath. But the Sabbath is not mentioned again till we come to the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, a connection with the events that occurred twenty-five hundred years after the creation. Now we are not to conclude from this that the Sabbath was unknown during all that period. Such a conclusion would be the farthest from the truth. The sacred historian has this one object in: To trace briefly the history of God’s people, and show the course that God took preserve a knowledge of himself in the earth. It must be remembered that these events were not jotted down as memoranda at the time of their occurrence; they were all written by one man, and although they cover so long a period of time, they are condensed into the smallest space; the entire history was doubtless written in a short space of time. The historian records the command, in Genesis 2:2, 3, to keep the Sabbath. When God gives a command, there is no other supposition but that it is to be, and will be, obeyed; so the writer hastens on, and again refers to the Sabbath when he reaches the point where it is again made the subject of legislation. The entire account may have been written, for aught we know, in a few days, or even a few hours. It may not be out of place to state that, having recorded the command of God in regard to the Sabbath, the silence of the sacred narrative on this subject, for so long a period, is prima facie evidence that it was observed during all that period. So strong is this evidence that he who disputes it is bound to give a reason for his denial; but no reason can be given. SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.4

But to return to the immediate subject of the lesson. For what purpose did Saul go into Arabia? There are two opinions in regard to this question. Some think that he went to carry the gospel to the heathen in that region. The other it is that he went there for a season of quiet meditation and communion with God, before he entered upon his life-work; that it was at this time that he received some, at least, of those wonderful revelations of which he speaks. We regard the latter opinion as the only tenable one, for the following reason:- SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.5

1. It was not till after Saul’s return to Jerusalem that he was set apart for the ministry to the Gentiles. The disciples did not yet fully comprehend the fact that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. It required a special vision from the Lord to overcome Peter’s scruples against associating with the Gentiles, and it was only when he related the vision in full, and told how that, without the ordinary ceremony of laying on of hands, the Holy Ghost had been bestowed on them, that the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem were reconciled to his course. Now when we consider the feeling against Paul, on account of his work among the Gentiles, even after he had been ordained for that especial purpose, we cannot suppose that he would have been received if he had engaged in it before receiving his ordination. SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.6

2. The connection of which Paul mentions his visit into Arabia, throws much light on the object of that visit. He begins his letter to the Galatians, thus: “Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),” etc. Again, in verses 11, 12, he says: “For I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” And then he says: “But when it pleased God.... to reveal his Son to me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother.” And he still farther states that when he went into Syria and Cilicia, he was “unknown by face unto the churches of Judea.” SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.7

Now what is the object of all the statements? Simply that he may establish his authority as a true apostle of Jesus Christ. The apostles were all men who accompanied Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, and were familiar with his teachings and practice. See Acts 1:21, 22. It was therefore necessary that Paul, to be equal with the other apostles, should be sent forth by the Lord himself, and not receive his knowledge of Christ at second hand. To show that this was the case, is the object of Paul in this first chapter of Galatians; and as positive proof, he states that after he was converted, instead of conferring with (i.e., receiving instruction from) flesh and blood, he went into Arabia. Surely the object of his visit could not be more clearly stated. SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.8

This fact is of interest, not merely as an item of history, but as showing the source of apostolic authority, and the value of apostolic practice. None of the apostles claim to have any power or authority of themselves. Paul especially repeats, again and again, that his teaching was not of himself, or of man, but of Christ. “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord,” is his declaration to the Thessalonians. The apostles were simply Christ’s representatives, caring on the work as they had seen him do it. If they deviated from this in the least, they were culpable. Thus Paul says: “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” As an evidence that the apostles were not infallible, we learn that Peter, was guilty of dissimulation, Galatians 2:11-14, and that Paul himself engaged in sharp contention with a fellow apostle, Acts 15:37-40. As Dr. Lyman Abbott says, “It is not the practice of the apostles, but their teaching, that we are to follow;” and we might add, as Paul himself did, that their teaching is of authority only because it agrees with that of Christ. SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.9

What then, we ask, becomes of the argument for Sunday observance, based upon a change which is pretended was made by the apostles? No one has yet had the boldness to claim that Christ ever kept Sunday, or ever taught its observance. It was his custom to worship on the Sabbath day. See Luke 4:16. Neither did he teach disregard for the Sabbath, but only for the senseless restrictions imposed by the Pharisees. On the contrary he taught his disciples to obey his commandments even as he obeyed his Father’s commandments. John 15:10; and his and the Father’s commandments were identical. John 12:49. Christ, then, taught, both by precept and practice, the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. Taking all these things into consideration, we find that apostolic license for Sunday-keeping resolves itself into this: Even if the apostles had commanded it, or practiced it themselves (which they did not do), such precept or practice would have had no authority whatever, since it would have been contrary to the teaching and practice of Christ. E. J. W. SITI June 28, 1883, page 293.10